Deciding whether to trust Wikipedia over an expert-led encyclopedia (or vice versa) is a tricky question. On the one hand, encyclopedias are created by experts in their fields, while Wikipedia is created by anybody who thinks they know something about topic of interest. On the other hand, encyclopedias are limited to occasional new editions, and finite space. If we’re to believe in the theory of the wisdom of crowds, then the knowledge of many is better than the knowledge of a few. By that reasoning, the Wikipedia would be a better source because many people are working on it at once and their collective wisdom will beat out that of a few experts working on a traditional encyclopedia. I believe that we can trust Wikipedia, but like everything else, you should perform additional research to back up the claims that might be on that site. What is written should not be taken as gospel, but instead should be a jumping point to get to more authorities that might allow you to make an educated belief in what you read.

As far as providing better accuracy, I think it’s nearly impossible for a free Website that allows input from anyone to ensure 100% accuracy. As it is now, mistakes can be challenged by anybody out in the community and changes can be made as necessary. Additionally, there are simply too many entries to be checked for complete accuracy. The current system seems to work pretty well, but again, it’s up to a user to verify what they read. As far as completely erroneous or false entries, those are usually fixed in a timely fashion. And Wikipedia needs to ensure that they protect the integrity of users by allowing them to challenge a false entry and making changes very quickly. It’s going to be hard to ensure that nothing slips through the cracks: that is the nature of a collaborative effort. But if the wisdom of the crowds truly does work, then enough people will ensure at least a respectable amount of accuracy.